> The net effect of this order is that we must abruptly disable Fable 5 and Mythos 5 for all our customers to ensure compliance.
Not great as it does break workflows for some.
> As we have stated publicly, we believe the government should have the ability to block unsafe deployments, as part of a statutory process that is transparent, fair, clear, and grounded in technical facts. This action does not adhere to those principles.
> The net effect of this order is that we must abruptly disable Fable 5 and Mythos 5 for all our customers to ensure compliance.
Not great as it does break workflows for some.
> As we have stated publicly, we believe the government should have the ability to block unsafe deployments, as part of a statutory process that is transparent, fair, clear, and grounded in technical facts. This action does not adhere to those principles.
Their products are cool and I've been happy with them over the years, but their blog right now has had some blunders recently. Also their reliability seems to have been having trouble but does seem better recently.
One account gets compromised and your doomed. A lot of companies even have prod access be a request based system. Most modern security models with zero trust don't let everyone have access to everything, quite the opposite.
I think they were intending to evoke the image of RAID rather than literally referring to a redundant array of inexpensive disks. You host your code on Github, Gitlab, and at home, then you survive a Github outage. It's a redundant array. Not sure it's inexpensive, though.
Yes I have both copies, prefer the ANSI C second edition my self. I brought another second hand C programming book and when I was working through the exercises in the mid 2000s the GNU C compiler kept issuing warnings as the code used gets() to read strings. :D
reply